What do you think?
Rate this book
Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States and Empowering Their People
Saving Congress from Itself proposes a single eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.
- GenresPolitics
120 pages, Hardcover
First published November 18, 2014
3 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 16, 2021
4 stars for a well thought out idea (and ways to make it work), and one star for conciseness (100 pages that flow smoothly).
June 7, 2016
According to the latest Gallup poll, only 11% of Americans approve of Congress’ job performance, but virtually every senator or representative who runs for reelection will receive it. Americans want Congress to do more, even as the institution proves itself incapable of doing much of anything. The problem lies not merely in entrenched partisanship, but in misplaced priorities. James Buckley argues that Congress is overworked -- not with its own responsibilities but of those of governors, state legislatures, mayors, and city councils.
The core problem is the existence of “grants in aid” programs, which transfer money to the states as assistance, and which carry with them stipulations for their use. This allows Congress to directly influence the policies of the states by offering money, and then explaining it can only be given out if the States follow Congress’ wishes. The creation and administration of these grants has become a major devourer of Congressional time. Because the number of programs granting aid has multiplied several times over since the 1960s, there are more committee reports to listen to than there are hours in the day. Buckley, who prior to serving as a federal judge was a member of the Senate, offers a sample daily agenda as illustration. Of the fifteen items spanning 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, only three had a national-interest scope, being items like reports from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a briefing on Iran. The rest were grant aid reports and requests, and so numerous were they that nine of the fifteen scheduled events had schedule conflicts with one another. Congressional members either skip meetings altogether, or dash from one to the other to put in an appearance, relying on aides to fill them in on the substance. Where is the time to read legislation, let alone pore over and discuss thousand-page bills? (A bill forcing Congress to read the bills it passes has yet to make it out of committee consideration.)
Congressmen use their time in this fashion because it pays, at least for them. While a national body should not be spending its time arguing and administrating local affairs, this is the sort of thing local citizens actually expect their Congressmen to do. When Mr. Smith goes to Washington and returns to townhalls with his constituents, they complain about bus routes and schoolrooms – and he, if he is able to finagle some funds for the locals, has an easy in come election day. That’s not chump change, because when they’re not missing meetings or voting for bills without reading them, congressmen are constantly working to get themselves reelected, spending hours on the phone to beg for money.
This is a situation that must be altered. Not only has Congress become patently dysfunctional, ceding every Constitutional prerogative to the executive branch, but the weight of ever-multiplying grants is fiscally unsustainable. The United States government doesn’t generate money; it either takes it from citizens, issues bonds that future generations will have to pay for, or prints more and weakens the value of the currency. Not only has the national government ceased to be effective, but the stipulations attached to these grants often compromises the aid as the funds are leached away on both ends in administration and in hiring lawyers who can interpret the Talmudic policy requirements. The number of agencies is such that many have redundant -- and sometimes even conflicting -- goals, with fuzzily-defined metrics for success. Aid can be done better, and so can government. A constant theme in Saving Congress from Itself is that of subsidiarity, that in matters of politics, responsibility should remain at the level most capable of dealing with it. A city should take care of its own infrastructure; outside grants only prop up poor planning, like low-density sprawl, and the ease of spending other people’s money means the funds won’t be put to their most productive use. (There’s no ‘skin in the game’, to borrow Nassim Taleb’s way of putting it.) The national Congress, with an entire world of challenges in front of it, certainly should not be deliberating on local issues.
Buckley ends the argument with several propositions that would serve to end this legislative torpor. To curb the amount of time officials spend working on their reelection campaigns, he suggests we (1) restrict Congressionals to two terms, and (2) limit the president to one six-year term. More drastically, he proposes that federally-issued grants end altogether, being phased out. Initially, money would simply be issued with no stipulations, and after a pre-fixed number of years to allow state governments to adjust their budgets, the grants would be no more. Buckley cites the example of Rhode Island, which was given an opportunity: if it agreed to receiving less money, there would be no rules whatsoever attached to the use. With no outside pressure, Rhode Island was allowed to tailor its own plan to its own particular need, with effective service increasing and costs declining. If Congress does not admit or pass the necessary legislation, a convention called by the States could also propose and pass amendments.
Saving Congress is a short little book, and Buckley doesn’t waste a word. I was aware of political corruption in regards to military contracts, but had little idea for how Congress conducted its business. Truth be told, I generally imagine Congress-folk to spend their time golfing, eating, and conspiring against the public. Buckley's argument is valuable in form as in substance. He approaches this from a nonpartisan observation that Congress is simply not performing. He doesn't deny that people still need help, but the current approach isn't doing it -- and it''s costing local cities who keep looking to Congress, and distracting Congress from its actual constitutional responsibilities. If nothing else, Saving Congress illustrates why the American public continues to elect their senators despite loathing Congress altogether: it's only pork on the other guy's plate.: One senator's wasteful spending is another's putting 'tax dollars back to work for you'. How about we dispense with the middle man and put our dollars to work for ourselves?
Related:
Thoughts on Building Strong Towns, Chuck Marohn.
http://thisweekatthelibrary.blogspot....
The core problem is the existence of “grants in aid” programs, which transfer money to the states as assistance, and which carry with them stipulations for their use. This allows Congress to directly influence the policies of the states by offering money, and then explaining it can only be given out if the States follow Congress’ wishes. The creation and administration of these grants has become a major devourer of Congressional time. Because the number of programs granting aid has multiplied several times over since the 1960s, there are more committee reports to listen to than there are hours in the day. Buckley, who prior to serving as a federal judge was a member of the Senate, offers a sample daily agenda as illustration. Of the fifteen items spanning 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, only three had a national-interest scope, being items like reports from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a briefing on Iran. The rest were grant aid reports and requests, and so numerous were they that nine of the fifteen scheduled events had schedule conflicts with one another. Congressional members either skip meetings altogether, or dash from one to the other to put in an appearance, relying on aides to fill them in on the substance. Where is the time to read legislation, let alone pore over and discuss thousand-page bills? (A bill forcing Congress to read the bills it passes has yet to make it out of committee consideration.)
Congressmen use their time in this fashion because it pays, at least for them. While a national body should not be spending its time arguing and administrating local affairs, this is the sort of thing local citizens actually expect their Congressmen to do. When Mr. Smith goes to Washington and returns to townhalls with his constituents, they complain about bus routes and schoolrooms – and he, if he is able to finagle some funds for the locals, has an easy in come election day. That’s not chump change, because when they’re not missing meetings or voting for bills without reading them, congressmen are constantly working to get themselves reelected, spending hours on the phone to beg for money.
This is a situation that must be altered. Not only has Congress become patently dysfunctional, ceding every Constitutional prerogative to the executive branch, but the weight of ever-multiplying grants is fiscally unsustainable. The United States government doesn’t generate money; it either takes it from citizens, issues bonds that future generations will have to pay for, or prints more and weakens the value of the currency. Not only has the national government ceased to be effective, but the stipulations attached to these grants often compromises the aid as the funds are leached away on both ends in administration and in hiring lawyers who can interpret the Talmudic policy requirements. The number of agencies is such that many have redundant -- and sometimes even conflicting -- goals, with fuzzily-defined metrics for success. Aid can be done better, and so can government. A constant theme in Saving Congress from Itself is that of subsidiarity, that in matters of politics, responsibility should remain at the level most capable of dealing with it. A city should take care of its own infrastructure; outside grants only prop up poor planning, like low-density sprawl, and the ease of spending other people’s money means the funds won’t be put to their most productive use. (There’s no ‘skin in the game’, to borrow Nassim Taleb’s way of putting it.) The national Congress, with an entire world of challenges in front of it, certainly should not be deliberating on local issues.
Buckley ends the argument with several propositions that would serve to end this legislative torpor. To curb the amount of time officials spend working on their reelection campaigns, he suggests we (1) restrict Congressionals to two terms, and (2) limit the president to one six-year term. More drastically, he proposes that federally-issued grants end altogether, being phased out. Initially, money would simply be issued with no stipulations, and after a pre-fixed number of years to allow state governments to adjust their budgets, the grants would be no more. Buckley cites the example of Rhode Island, which was given an opportunity: if it agreed to receiving less money, there would be no rules whatsoever attached to the use. With no outside pressure, Rhode Island was allowed to tailor its own plan to its own particular need, with effective service increasing and costs declining. If Congress does not admit or pass the necessary legislation, a convention called by the States could also propose and pass amendments.
Saving Congress is a short little book, and Buckley doesn’t waste a word. I was aware of political corruption in regards to military contracts, but had little idea for how Congress conducted its business. Truth be told, I generally imagine Congress-folk to spend their time golfing, eating, and conspiring against the public. Buckley's argument is valuable in form as in substance. He approaches this from a nonpartisan observation that Congress is simply not performing. He doesn't deny that people still need help, but the current approach isn't doing it -- and it''s costing local cities who keep looking to Congress, and distracting Congress from its actual constitutional responsibilities. If nothing else, Saving Congress illustrates why the American public continues to elect their senators despite loathing Congress altogether: it's only pork on the other guy's plate.: One senator's wasteful spending is another's putting 'tax dollars back to work for you'. How about we dispense with the middle man and put our dollars to work for ourselves?
Related:
Thoughts on Building Strong Towns, Chuck Marohn.
http://thisweekatthelibrary.blogspot....
April 16, 2020
‘The people never part with their power’ – considering Federalism
Connecticut author James L Buckley earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale, served as a US Navy officer in WW II, practiced law, and has served as a US Senator, under secretary of state in the Reagan administration, president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, and judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columba Circuit. Now retired, he lives in Sharon, Connecticut.
SAVING CONGRESS FROM ITSELF was originally published in 2014, but the book is so very pertinent during this contemporary climate that it deserves the attention of all readers now, especially with the continuing dialogue between the White House and the governors of the states as a primary COVID-19 topic.
The author magnetizes our attention in his opening comments – ‘The United States faces two major problems today: runaway spending that threatens to bankrupt us and a Congress that appears unable to deal with long-term problems of any consequence. A significant source of each is a category of federal expenditure that has somehow escaped the notice it deserves. I refer to the federal grants to state and local governments hat have soared from $24.1 billion in 1970 to an estimated $640.8 billion in 2015.’ Remember, when this book was written in 2014, these numbers and premises merited attention. Then transpose today’s situation into the facts on these pages and the result is a better understanding of the author’s reason for writing.
The outline of the content explains the book’s message very well: ’Saving Congress from Itself proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.’
This is food for thought and contemplation as the struggles of today play out. Buckley’s writing is cogent, important, and relevant, deserving attention. 2020 is a unique year to consider his thoughts.
Connecticut author James L Buckley earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale, served as a US Navy officer in WW II, practiced law, and has served as a US Senator, under secretary of state in the Reagan administration, president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, and judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columba Circuit. Now retired, he lives in Sharon, Connecticut.
SAVING CONGRESS FROM ITSELF was originally published in 2014, but the book is so very pertinent during this contemporary climate that it deserves the attention of all readers now, especially with the continuing dialogue between the White House and the governors of the states as a primary COVID-19 topic.
The author magnetizes our attention in his opening comments – ‘The United States faces two major problems today: runaway spending that threatens to bankrupt us and a Congress that appears unable to deal with long-term problems of any consequence. A significant source of each is a category of federal expenditure that has somehow escaped the notice it deserves. I refer to the federal grants to state and local governments hat have soared from $24.1 billion in 1970 to an estimated $640.8 billion in 2015.’ Remember, when this book was written in 2014, these numbers and premises merited attention. Then transpose today’s situation into the facts on these pages and the result is a better understanding of the author’s reason for writing.
The outline of the content explains the book’s message very well: ’Saving Congress from Itself proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.’
This is food for thought and contemplation as the struggles of today play out. Buckley’s writing is cogent, important, and relevant, deserving attention. 2020 is a unique year to consider his thoughts.
October 30, 2015
This short monograph by the former NY senator (aka Bill's brother) offers one sweeping change to how we govern in this country--eliminate all grants from the federal government to the states. The reasons for doing so are the bulk of the book, so I won't recapitulate them here. Basically, these grants (totaling about $640B in the most recent fiscal year for which he had data) are inefficient for any number of reasons. Far better to keep the money at the state or local system instead of sending it to Washington only to get it back with a large chunk removed. Not to mention most of the programs are unconstitutional.
I won't go into all the details, but I believe this proposal would be very beneficial to the health of the republic (if you could ever get elected officials in Washington to go for it). He suggests a few ancillary measures (term limits; removal of caps on campaign donations; reversal of a few SCOTUS decisions) that would only further aid the cause of limited constitutional government.
I won't go into all the details, but I believe this proposal would be very beneficial to the health of the republic (if you could ever get elected officials in Washington to go for it). He suggests a few ancillary measures (term limits; removal of caps on campaign donations; reversal of a few SCOTUS decisions) that would only further aid the cause of limited constitutional government.
Read
June 16, 2015"Buckley recognizes that it would be impossible to eliminate suddenly all federal grants-in-aid. The states could not stand the shock of giving up the federal dollars cold turkey. He proposes that first all federal grants be converted to no-strings-attached block grants, along the lines of the Rhode Island Medicaid example, and then phased out over a period of five or six years. I can’t go all this way with him—not yet anyway. I would need a lot more information than is contained in his short book before concluding that all federal grants in aid should be eliminated.
But Jim Buckley has persuaded me that there are serious disadvantageous to grants-in-aid programs, that they are—at a minimum—grossly overused, and that we need a national conversation about them. He clearly hopes that his book, which can be read in one sitting, will start that conversation. I hope so too."
Carl T. Bogus reviews: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
But Jim Buckley has persuaded me that there are serious disadvantageous to grants-in-aid programs, that they are—at a minimum—grossly overused, and that we need a national conversation about them. He clearly hopes that his book, which can be read in one sitting, will start that conversation. I hope so too."
Carl T. Bogus reviews: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Read
February 14, 2021I could not quite make sense of some of the solutions provided. I am not sold on the author's idea of doing away with caps on individual political contributions. Also, Congress is so inefficient! Seems like an impossible situation to me. After reading this, I am not sure which should take a priority: mitigating "legal corruption" (from Lesterland), or mitigating congressional inefficiencies and oversteps.
Read
February 4, 2016A good, short primer on why there's no such as free federal money and how the states are becoming, or have become, wards of the federal government. While it's doubtful Buckley's prescription for stemming the flood of federal spending will happen, it's an eye-opening read.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews